zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. 99_00+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-02 19:01:42
Is this because of police changing their tactics or is it because of journalists changing their tactics?

I don't know the answer, but with the internet and analytics, we've seen media become more sensationalistic to get those clicks and views. So this is a possibility that should be considered.

replies(2): >>august+y2 >>colech+Ra
2. august+y2[view] [source] 2020-06-02 19:15:31
>>99_00+(OP)
Honestly cannot tell if you're trolling. If journalists are getting roughed up more because of sensationalism (still well within their 1st amendment rights) that is _completely_ the fault of police.

One side has cameras. The other side has guns. When violence happens, who's fault do you think it is?

replies(1): >>99_00+na
◧◩
3. 99_00+na[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-02 19:46:12
>>august+y2
Do you agree that police have the right to declare a gathering unlawful and can clear the area?
replies(2): >>colech+2c >>august+ef
4. colech+Ra[view] [source] 2020-06-02 19:48:21
>>99_00+(OP)
Some has to do with the police tactic of breaking up protests by lining up in riot gear and marching towards a crowd advancing and then clearing the area in front of them with tear gas. (the example of this was breaking up an after-curfew protest in Minneapolis in front of a police station, the night after a different station had burned to the ground). Their goal seemed to be to disburse the crowd and arrest a few people as possible.

The next night their tactics changed, for the better, a similar after-curfew protest group was warned, given time, and everybody remaining was encircled by a close knit line of police and every single person was arrested. The second tactic had a much better outcome, it seemed.

There were reporters stationed on the outskirts of the crowd but between the crowd and police, and I saw some of them get teargassed. In that case it had more to do with wind and proximity than being targeted. Much different than police actively going after reporters, but sources like this one don't seem to differentiate between collateral damage from proximity and direct targeting of media teams.

Also, police in gas masks, partially for tear gas protection, partially for covid protection, facing crowd who at times have attacked police, they can't see very well, they are under enormous amounts of stress, and few of them have experience doing anything like this... if you pull back from the blame, talking about rights and duties, and just focus for a minute on the humanity... ask yourself how are these people going to fail? You'd probably come up with a lot of the ways the police indeed are failing. Now in the same context think of how those failures could be reduced without thinking about blame... and it's hard. It's a hard problem.

Just like failures in a tech stack and a team of programmers, blame is not the path to solving problems. You don't go find the guy who wrote the bug and shout at him or send him to jail or fire him or string him up in the public square, you write unit tests, you write post-mortems, you make backups, you make new monitors... in short you find the sources of problems, you investigate them, and you solve them. That sort of thought about failure needs to happen more in software, and it needs to happen more in the rest of life too. Recognizing failures, having empathy for those who fail, realizing the source of those failures is systematic, and working on systematic solutions.

◧◩◪
5. colech+2c[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-02 19:52:58
>>99_00+na
The police? Not so much. Police don't make law, they shouldn't get to decide very many things at all.

The state (or city, or nation, where appropriate)? Absolutely, but only when absolutely necessary. (like curfew orders which follow widespread disorder and destruction)

replies(1): >>99_00+If
◧◩◪
6. august+ef[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-02 20:10:29
>>99_00+na
Clear the area how? I think people have forgotten this doesn't need to mean your first step is pulling out the batons. If you tell a journalist they are under arrest, they will always comply. They won't fight back. So yes, still cops' fault.
replies(1): >>99_00+hC
◧◩◪◨
7. 99_00+If[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-02 20:12:50
>>colech+2c
In practice, they do have that right. And they have the right to use reasonable force to enforce that. So arguing that police are always wrong to use force to clear an area, regardless if media are there or not, is an argument against the laws as they are.

That's a hard argument to make.

◧◩◪◨
8. 99_00+hC[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-02 22:28:19
>>august+ef
>I think people have forgotten this doesn't need to mean your first step is pulling out the batons.

When and where did this happen? The first step is verbally telling people to clear the area.

>If you tell a journalist they are under arrest, they will always comply. They won't fight back. So yes, still cops' fault.

Given the fact that the police are always outnumbered in these situations, and vehicles, jails and officers have limited capacity, arresting everyone who doesn't comply is impossible. So they are first asked to leave. If they don't they are pushed out of the area by force.

If reporters are too close to the police line that is pushing people they will get pushed along with everyone else. Breaking the line weakens it and hampers the police's efforts.

[go to top]